Talk:Freemasonry and women

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Made in the name of God[edit]

"Many masons believe that regardless of their opinions of women in masonry, they can not break their obligation, which is made in the name of God."

I object to the "which is made in the name of God." part of the above statement. Believing in God is not a requirement for Freemasonry, so I am unsure of whether the statement is true or not. I'll change it to "which is made in the name of their God." for now, although it is not ideal, as what counts as a "Supreme Being" can be quite far ranged and not limited to the Abrahamic God. Kytok 06:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woefully inadequate[edit]

This page is woefully inadequate. We read that: "Traditionally, only men can be made Freemasons in Regular Freemasonry." Yet the reality is that women were admitted to lodges before the innovation of regularity. Currently the earliest known ritual intended for women's participation is that of Loge de Juste in the Netherlands, dating from 1751, two years before the veritable schism in English Freemasonry of 1753. I wonder whether we would not be better rewriting the whole thing? What do people think?Harrypotter 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which came first?[edit]

I find nearly-identical content here. This isn't the first time I've seen a page that essentially copied Wikipedia wholesale; however, previously I've seen Wikipedia cited. So which page came first? Wikipedia's, or "NationMaster"'s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.31.21 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked that, and it is cited to Wikipedia way at the bottom, so we're good.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry and women?[edit]

I am wondering, why not this as a title? F precedes M in the alphabet, and women are a more relevant issue to the topic of freemasonry than freemasonry is to all issues pertaining to women. This would also clearly make the 'w' lowercase, rather than needing to precede the title with the phrase 'The subject of' so as to avoid uppercasing the 'w'. Tyciol (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because our other articles are titled "<something> and Freemasonry". MSJapan (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tyciol may have a point here... the other "....and Freemasonry" articles are all focused on someone else's attitudes towards Freemasonry (see: Catholicism and Freemasonry for an example), which is not the case with this article. The focus of this article is more historical... explaining the ways in which women have been associated with Freemasonry through the years. Perhaps Women in Freemasonry? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blueboar. "Women in Freemasonry" is a much better title as it more precisely explains the topic. Ergo-Nord (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... forgot all about this since January. OK, unless there are objections, I am going to move this article to "Women in Freemasonry" and redirect this title to that. (I'll wait a few days to see if there are any objections). Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this move. "Women and Freemasonry" could include Eastern Star and White Shrine -- "Women in Freemasonry" couldn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is a good point. Do you object Tyciol's original idea of moving this to "Freemasonry and women"? Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another female freemason - Countess Brankoczy[edit]

Exactly how many other examples of women eccepted in to regular freemasons are there except Elizabeth Aldworth? I just read a (Swedish language) book about secret societies. In the chapter about the freemasons, there was a short notice about another woman than Aldworth, who was also a full member of a regular freemasonic lodge. A Hungarian Countess by the name of Brankoczy was accepted in to the freemasons in the 18th-century, during the reign of Maria Theresia. The reason for this was, reportedly, that Brankoczy had inherited her father's title and position as the head of his family, and was therefore counted as a man and a count rather than a countess. She was inducted by a local lodge, and when the main lodge of Hungary heard of this, she was cast out again. According to the book, she was one of only two women confirmed to have been inducted to the regular freemasons in accordance to the same rituals as men. Unfortunately, this notice was very short, only a few lines, and really didn't say any more than above. Can anyone confirm this? What was her full name and who was she? The book only briefly mentione her as "Countess Brankoczy". When did she live and when was she inducted to the freemasons? It should perhaps be added to the article.--Aciram (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Done[reply]

Copyright issues.[edit]

The section on Women as Operative Masons appears to have been cut and pasted from Women as Operative Masons on the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons website. If anybody thinks this text came first, now would be a good time to say something. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It definitely did not originate with us... it came from the HFoAF website. Using Internet Archive's Wayback machine... this is their website as of 2007, and the text did not appear here until 2009 (see this series of diffs where it was added)... I would suggest checking the rest of the text in that series of diffs (especially the section on the HFoAF) ... it was added by the same editor, at the same time, and is probably a copy vio as well. Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said... we can probably use it as a source, and the basis for a re-write, rather than just deleting. Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The other large chunk is from the history page on the same site. Bro Scott's "pamphlet" (it was 52 pages long) was extensively mined on both pages, and as the original has assumed the status of dragon's teeth, the site is probably one of the best sources available. If we're re-writing, adoptive masonry needs covered, since it is not mentioned at all at present. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-Masonic[edit]

I have a real problem with listing the Order of the Eastern Star in the same section as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Eastern Star is officially recognized by most (if not all) US Grand Lodges as being solidly within the broad Masonic family (ie it is considered "Masonic" even though both organizations are careful to say that it is not actually Freemasonry). Golden Dawn, on the other hand has never been recognized as being even remotely Masonic by anyone except itself (and it claimed to be an actual form of Freemasonry). I am not sure what the right terminology would be, but to call them both "Quasi-Masonic", as if their relationship to freemasonry was the same is wrong. (Personally, I would call HOGD "pseudo-Masonic"... but that may be a POV designation on my part). Blueboar (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have the same problem, and settled on quasi-masonic as a bit of a space-filler until somebody came up with something better. What about moving the weavers and the Eastern Star into a sub-section of adoptive rites?
The Golden Dawn was founded by three masons, one of whom later became WM of Quatuor Coronati, on ritual supplied, in the first instance, by the founder of the same lodge. The rite is recognisably masonic in character, and links to the SRIA, which is definitely masonic. Ergo, its claim to masonic roots deserves to be taken more than seriously.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a term to describe OES ... that term is either "Appendant" or "Concordant" body (I am still get these two terms mixed up, but...) One of these refers to groups open only to Masons and officially recognized as being a form of Masonry (such as the York or Scottish Rite, and the Shrine)... the other is the term used to describe organizations that are not considered Freemasonry, but are considered "Masonic" enough to be sponsored and/or supported by Freemasonry (OES, the Youth groups like Demolay and Rainbow, Job's Daughters, etc. and various men's groups that are not "official" forms of Freemasonry) Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better? More short examples, perhaps, rather than attempt to cover every wibbly little group. (I'm half tempted to stick Wicca under quasi-masonic. Merry meet again, indeed.) Meanwhile, while the Co-Freemasonry section isn't plagiarised, it does read like a recruitment pamphlet. I'll tackle that next, unless there are any obvious problems with the current structure of the article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The grades formed a teaching system for the Caballah". Although this word has at least three recognised variant spellings (Cabala, Kabbalah, Qabalah), Caballah is not one of them. Why was my correction to Cabala reverted to Caballah? Is there any logic behind it all? Nuttyskin (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the word is used in the paragraph discussing the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and since the article on that organization uses "Kabbalah", I have conformed the spelling here to match. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed lodges in the Eighteenth century[edit]

I can't find any evidence that these followed the male ritual. I've so far found Apprentie rites based on the Garden of Eden, and on the Tower of Babel, but nothing approximating to entered apprentice/apprenti in anglo-american/continental freemasonry. The degrees had the same names, and the similarity, as far as I can tell, simply ended there. I am willing to be proved wrong, however...Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked into the situation in the Netherlands? Historian Margaret Jacob may have some insight into this. Although she tends to focus on the influence of Freemasonry on European society and politics (and not on the specific rituals)... she makes a big deal of the Dutch lodges that admitted women in the mid 1700s... and I definitely came away from reading her books with the impression that the co-ed Dutch Masonic Lodges conducted essentially the same rituals as those that stayed strictly men only (with several lodges going back and fourth between the two camps several times, depending on who was in charge). I could, however, have misunderstood what she was saying... or, since it has been a while since I read her works, I could be misremembering what she said.
I do admit... French Freemasonry in the era before the Revolution is difficult thing to study (and it does not get all that much easier after the Revolution)... it sometimes seems that every single Freemason in France was busy inventing and promoting his own set of Masonic degrees. There were hundreds of degrees, and numerous "rites" (groups of degrees clumped together). Some rites had their own rituals... others stole degrees from other popular rites and mixed them together in new ways. And (of course) each claimed to be older and purer forms of Freemasonry than their rivals. Blueboar (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From GLFdF:-

La plus ancienne est peut être la loge de «Juste» à La Haye, elle se réunit au moins durant quelques mois en 1751. En France, on note la présence de femmes dans les loges avant 1750 ; par exemple, à Bordeaux, dans la loge « L’Anglaise », où il se disait, en 1746, que des « Loges de Franches-Maçonnes dite des Sœurs de l’Adoption » se tenaient en ville et à Brioude dans la loge « Saint Julien » où quatre femmes ont été initiées en 1747.

As les Franches-Maçonnes modernes, who now have a considerable research department, have these early ladies lodges firmly files under adoption, I'd like to err on the side of caution until we can find a concrete reference to the contrary. I will, however, keep looking. I'm sure the Belgian ladies would have something to say, but the GOdB have moved their site, and the GLFdB, who had part of their old site, have disappeared from the internet. Everything else I've tracked down is either adoption only or copied word for word from wikipedia.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with erring on the side of caution. I am simply raising questions and cautions myself. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I'll try and look up the Jacob reference over the next couple of weeks. Meanwhile, the Grand Orient of the Netherlands reckons 1807 was their first ladies lodge, and that also adoption. This from their statement when they considered admitting women in 1920. As a fishing expedition, I'm more inclined to look at Brioude and the Belgian lodges as possible genuine initiations.
Jacob may have picked up that 18th/19th century sources look on these rites of adoption as genuinely feminist, and by 1810 the various Grand Orients obviously came to see them as subversive, possibly as the thin end of the wedge that would admit women into their secrets. They occurred in societies where middle/upper class women were better educated than their English counterparts, and there was less separation in social activity. This possibly could stand a bit of exploration, if not here, then in the rather pathetic Rite of Adoption article, which is a translation from the barely referenced French article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Droit Humain name change[edit]

I have just reverted the following addition;- In 2012, the Order has adopted the less ambiguous English title of International Order of Freemasonry for Men and Women - Le Droit Humain. - which was referenced by a link to the home page of the Droit Humain English language section. Nothing on the site supported the statement, nor did anything on the UK DH site. I accept that this is a useful addition, but a reference which states clearly that there was a name change and when it occurred is required of an encyclopedia entry. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to look into... is this change applicable to a specific jurisdiction (UK? US?), or was a similar name change adopted throughout all DH jurisdictions? Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our anonymous editor also linked an Australian site, I'm guessing it's the English speaking part of DH. The other reverted edit spoke about bridging the gap between UGLE & Continental rites, which is too strongly worded when UGLE isn't speaking to either GOdF or DH, but might bear investigation in Co-Masonry or Annie Besant. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Freemasonry and women/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted soon. --1ST7 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:
  1. Well-written
    • The lead is a little long-winded. Can it be edited down some?
    • The subsections under "Other concordant bodies admitting women" and "Quasi-Masonic Rites" are short enough that they don't really need their own section. The former's text could also be fleshed out more.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    • The last two sentences of "Elizabeth Aldworth" need a citation.
    • Most of the subsections under "Female Masons in 'Masculine Only' Masonic Bodies" are only supported by one source. Can more be added?
    • Reference numbers 8 and 9 are to the French Wikipedia, which can't be used as a citation here.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
  4. Neutral:
  5. Stable:
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
I'll put the article on hold to give you time to address these things. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The changes have been nicely addressed. The article looks good to go now, so I'm going to pass it. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of Masonic Lodges of Adoption[edit]

Category:Members of Masonic Lodges of Adoption, which is related to the scope of this article, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woefully inadequate[edit]

This page is woefully inadequate. We read that: "Traditionally, only men can be made Freemasons in Regular Freemasonry." Yet the reality is that women were admitted to lodges before the innovation of regularity. Currently the earliest known ritual intended for women's participation is that of Loge de Juste in the Netherlands, dating from 1751, two years before the veritable schism in English Freemasonry of 1753. I wonder whether we would not be better rewriting the whole thing? What do people think?Harrypotter 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years later, the article has improved but the introduction still does a disservice by framing the Premier Grand Lodge of England as orthodox and every other Masonic organization as heretical. There's no basis for that dichotomy. Certainly the scope of the article should include Masonic organizations that don't allow female members, but the one strain of Freemasonry is being given undue weight. This came to my attention, because this logic is being used to exclude biographies of women from being included in Masonic categories because they aren't "real". RevelationDirect (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The intro states "A few women were involved in Freemasonry before the 18th century; however the first printed constitutions of the Premier Grand Lodge of England appeared to bar them from the Craft forever." I don't see that this is undue weight, since it was the ONLY Grand Lodge at the time (1723). The result of this regrettable prejudice was all masonic lodges, of all classes and persuasions, became big boys clubs until 1893. Remember, the rite of the Premier Grand Lodge was erased in 1813 (as heretical), and it only persists in the Continental lodges it spun off, which are gradually starting to admit women. That's a mouthful for the intro, but suggestions are welcome. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is clunky and makes no sense so I re-wrote it. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Freemasonry and women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update to section on section on membership in the Ladies Oriental Shrine of North America. Relation to a Mason is no longer required if endorsed by two members in good standing. https://ladiesorientalshrine.org/join/[edit]

Any Lady wishing to become a member of The Ladies’ Oriental Shrine of North America, Inc., must be related by birth, marriage or adoption to a member in good standing, or a deceased member who was in good standing at the time of death, of the Shriners International or a Master Mason; or have the endorsement of two (2) members in good standing of the Ladies’ Oriental Shrine of North America, Inc., and must be at least eighteen (18) years of age. 70.40.26.194 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry_and_women&oldid=1209400652"